Lingering Disputes Stall Consideration Of Child-Care Bill

Washington--Despite broad-based public and professional support for
federal child-care legislation, negotiations over key elements of a
major child-care bill are delaying its consideration in the Senate.

Unresolved disputes over the federal role in subsidizing and
regulating child care ultimately derailed the "act for better
child-care services" last year. The new controversies--over some of the
same issues--likewise have raised obstacles to rapid action in the
101st Congress.

Although sponsors had hoped to bring the bill to the floor early
this month, they are now aiming to move the measure shortly after the
Congress returns from its Memorial Day recess in early June.

One of the most contentious issues concerns the provision of aid to
child-care centers run by religious institutions.

Although the measure now includes a prohibition against the use of
funds for religious purposes or instruction, the U.S. Catholic
Conference announced last week that it would seek an amendment allowing
federal vouchers to be used for sectarian child care.

The move threatened to upset a compromise on church-state issues
that had eased the bill's passage by a Senate panel.

Meanwhile, negotiations on another controversial issue--the federal
role in mandating health, quality, and safety standards for child
care--are underway between the bill's sponsors and the National
Governors' Association.

The two parties have tentatively agreed on a substitute measure that
would offer incentives for states to set their own standards within
specified guidelines. But the bill could lose the n.g.a.'s endorsement
if it retains a provision mandating the number of hours of training
required for child-care workers.

Also unresolved is whether--and how--to incorporate into the bill a
tax-credit measure along the lines proposed by President George Bush
and other Republicans. Such a component has triggered discussion among
Congressional tax panels and could raise new questions about the bill's
pricetag.

Despite these lingering debates over critical elements of the bill,
however, supporters remain optimistic that some agreement will emerge
in this Congress.

"The a.b.c. has surmounted what had in the past seemed
insurmountable hurdles," said Amy Tyler Wilkins, a program associate
with the Children's Defense Fund, which played a lead role in crafting
the legislation. "Support in both houses of Congress--and more
importantly, among voters--is so huge that there is going to be
enormous pressure to resolve these issues."

As passed by the Senate panel, the $2.6-billion measure would
subsidize child care for moderate and low-income families, increase the
supply of providers and improve their training, and set minimum quality
and safety standards.

In view of estimates that a third of all child care is operated by
religious groups, provisions governing church-based care are considered
critical to the measure.

A clash between some education and child-advocacy groups over the
extent to which the federal government should subsidize and regulate
such care was among the factors that led to the a.b.c.'s downfall in
the last Congress.

The National Education Association and other groups had argued that
child-care certificates allowed under the bill could pave the way for a
voucher system for K-12 education that could be used to subsidize
parochial-school instruction.

They also feared that allowing churches to favor job candidates of
their own faith would increase opportunities for religious
indoctrination in child care.

In March, the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee approved a
version of the a.b.c. with new church-state language that won the
backing of the n.e.a., the National p.t.a., and other groups that had
objected to last year's measure.

The panel added language, modeled after the Head Start program, that
would bar day-care providers who receive 80 percent or more of their
funds from public sources from religion-based discrimination either in
admissions or hiring.

The panel also laid out some hiring restrictions for providers
receiving a lesser share of public funds and adopted an amendment that
would require parents and providers who wish to use vouchers to sign a
written agreement with the state.

Although the changes prompted the n.e.a. and other groups to
withdraw their opposition, they are bracing for another showdown over
the Catholic Conference's new proposal.

Senators Wendell H. Ford, Democrat of Kentucky, and David
Durenberger, Republican of Minnesota, plan to sponsor the "parental
choice" amendment, which would allow parents to use federally funded
child-care certificates to purchase child care with a "religious
orientation."

Carolyn C. Boos, an assistant to Mr. Durenberger, said the original
bill "leaves uncertain the ability of a parent" to choose care operated
not only in churches, but in homes where caregivers say prayers before
meals or engage in other religious practices.

As the bill stands, said the Rev. Kenneth Doyle, the Catholic
Conference's director of media relations, private homes with "trappings
of religion--such as a cross or a Jewish menorah--could be disqualified
as an ineligible setting for day care."

Restricting aid to care that is completely secular, he said, "would
discriminate against parents of eligible children who elect child care
in a religious setting" and undercut "much needed services now offered
by many religious providers."

Critics contend, however, that the proposed amendment would not only
undermine the a.b.c. bill--but could render it unconstitutional.

In a May 5 letter to Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who
chairs the Labor and Human Resources Committee, the Harvard University
legal expert Lawrence H. Tribe said the proposal "would create a
significant risk that the a.b.c. bill would be held
unconstitutional."

Father Doyle said that "the principle of parental choice has already
been established by the U.S. Supreme Court" in Mueller v. Allen, a 1983
ruling that upheld a Minnesota law allowing parents to take tax
deductions for costs incurred in sending children to public or private
schools.

"The certificate would act like a tax credit in that you are giving
it to a broad array of people and giving them the choice to use the
certificate in the care setting they choose," Ms. Boos added.

Mr. Tribe argued, however, that deductions offer an "indirect
benefit" to religious schools, while a.b.c. funds would go directly
from the government to the child-care provider who receives the
certificate.

Michael Edwards, the n.e.a.'s director of Congressional relations,
said last week that the amendment proposed by the Catholic Conference
would "set a devastating precedent" for federal education programs. "It
says we can take federal dollars and we can inculcate religious
values."

He added that the proposal would "completely obliterate" what he
termed a "carefully drafted compromise, supported by every major
religious organization, that would have ensured a strict separation of
church and state and nondiscrimination" in child-care settings.

Mr. Edwards said the Catholic Conference was one of several groups
that pledged not only to back that compromise--but to refrain from
seeking other changes in the bill's church-state language.

"We are tremendously disappointed in the Catholic Conference, which
has decided not to honor this commitment," he said.

Father Doyle countered last week that the group had voiced concern
"all along in the process" about ensuring parents' right to use
certificates for religious child care.

He added that more detailed language included in the committee
report accompanying the bill--and correspondence from members over the
last year--had "made it evident to us that this is precisely the
amendment that is needed to preserve the maximum eligibility of
day-care slots."

Mr. Edwards maintained, however, that there was "nothing in the
report language" that the Catholic Conference had not previously agreed
to. He noted that amendments placing restrictions on the appearance of
religious signs and symbols in child-care centers were removed from an
earlier version of the bill at the group's request.

Their proposal, he argued, "would not only undermine all the
agreements it has taken two and a half years to work out, but it could
truly jeopardize passage of the legislation in the Senate."

But others said they did not believe the amendment would impede the
bill's passage.

"This is not necessarily a partisan issue," said Ms. Boos. She added
that Senator Durenberger was "finding support" for the proposed
amendment "on both sides of the aisle and from various parts of the
country."

A.b.c. backers remain optimistic that a compromise can be
reached.

"We think the a.b.c. coalition is strong enough and support in the
Senate and from leadership is strong enough that this issue can be
satisfactorily resolved," said Jason Isaacson, press secretary for
Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, the chief Democratic
sponsor of the bill in the Senate.

Congressional sources also noted that whatever language is adopted
in the Senate is likely to be modified in the House, where
Representative Augustus Hawkins of California is backing a child-care
measure that would expand Head Start and school-based child-care
programs and limit the use of child-care certificates to infants under
age 3.

Another issue that has proved troublesome for the a.b.c. involves
the establishment of a national commission to set federal standards for
child-care centers.

Although Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, has lent his
support to the measure, conservative lawmakers generally have opposed
federal regulation of the field.

Support from the nation's governors, observers say, could help
bolster support for the bill.

Talks are underway between n.g.a. representatives and a.b.c.
sponsors in an effort to fashion a compromise on the standards
issue.

Wendy Adler, a senior staff assoel15lciate with the n.g.a., said
that a tentative agreement under discussion would set model standards
and establish a discretionary grant program to help states meet
them.

"Our concern has always been that states and governors want to work
on upgrading standards," Ms. Adler said, "but if they don't have
adequate appropriations to do so, it becomes increasingly
difficult."

Another concern, she said, was that the bill did not sufficiently
recognize geographic variations in child care.

The compromise language would require states to put into place a
standard for each category now listed in the bill. But it would allow
them to set their own criteria for meeting those standards.

In addition to standards on child-staff ratios, group sizes, and
caregiver qualifications, the agreement would address several new
categories--including prevention and control of infectious disease,
provision of services for children with special needs, and prevention
of child abuse.

The proposal also would ease an a.b.c. requirement mandating yearly
inspections for 20 percent of the private homes providing day care.

But Ms. Adler noted that no compromise had been struck so far on a
provision to require 40 hours of training every two years for all
child-care providers in a state, regardless of whether they receive
a.b.c. funds.

While the governors "believe training is critical to quality child
care," she said, they fear that such a stringent and costly requirement
could discourage states from licensing additional centers and "put
centers underground."

"We wouldn't give full support to the bill unless the training
requirement is deleted," she said.

Another quandary facing a.b.c. backers is how to build in a
tax-credit component, which many acknowledge is needed to win White
House and Republican support.

President Bush unveiled a proposal in March that would offer
low-income families a refundable tax credit of up to $1,000 for
children under the age of 4. He also proposed expanding the Head Start
program and making the existing dependent-care credit refundable.

While supporters say they would welcome a tax-credit measure as a
complement to a.b.c., the mechanics of adding one could stall the
bill.

Unless a tax provision originates in the House, that chamber has the
power to stop action on tax-related legislation in the Senate.

For that reason, aides said, the Senate Finance Committee chairman,
Lloyd Bentsen of Texas, is not inclined to support a tax measure
submitted on the Senate floor. Mr. Bentsen would also prefer that his
commmittee have the opportunity to consider such a bill before sending
it to the floor, they said.

In spite of such obstacles, observers note that some factors that
dogged the a.b.c. in the last Congress are no longer present. They
include the "test of wills" between the 1988 Presidential contenders
and signals from the Reagan Administration to "go slow" on child
care.

Mr. Isaacson argued that "a greater recognition on the part of the
Bush Administration that something has to be done in child care" would
give the measure a "better shot" in Congress. But he added: "No one
expected the a.b.c. bill to be a cakewalk."

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.